Imagine a child decants kerosene over a rabbit and sets it on fire. One argument could be made that this act was immoral because it could encourage the child to set other things on fire. However, another point could be made that it might help the child build traits that he did not have before (Frey 13). In 1966 the Animal Welfare Act was passed which “...regulated the sale, transportation, and handling of many animals used in research…” (Driscoll and Finley 3), but the act does not cover rats, mice, fish , and birds which make up around ninety-five percent of tested animals (“Should Animals Be Used” 3). Government approved acts are proposed and confirmed to ensure the safety of animals, but organizations soon find their way around them. Additionally,
…show more content…
Experimentation leads to the well-being of the human race as well as the animal population. For example, the findings of cures for diseases, conditions, and more can favor the human population because as a whole people will be endangered less. Another reason why people support animal testing is that animals can benefit from the experimentation themselves. Studies have shown how and why animal research is so valuable to the normal human, animals, and the military. The short life span of mice or rats aids researchers to examine the potency of a chemical or drug over a full lifespan. For example, researchers say that rats and mice are well-suited for cancer statistics because they live for about two to three years (“Should Animal Be Used” 3). The cancer cells tested on mice could also potentially be used on mice in the future which would increase their population. Animal testing advocates also say that testing benefits the lives of humans, but also helps develop military weapons and harmful injuries endured during the war. More specifically, some tests “...involved exposure to nerve agents or gases as well as inducing chemical burns” (“Military Defence” Murnaghan 1). The armed forces would not be able to treat burns or gas conditions if they did not conduct …show more content…
Researchers find that animals do not relate closely to humans; therefore, experimentation can be a waste of money and lives. Paul Furlong, the Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University, states that animals are difficult to test on because they are not equivalent in structure to humans. For example, it is difficult to compare a tiny mouse with a one hundred and fifty pound human (“Should Animals Be Used” 2). Also, breakthroughs can be discovered without experimentation; however, false credit has been given to researchers. For example, the discovery of insulin was credited through animal tests in 1922; however, the real finding of insulin was from Thomas Crawley, who performed an autopsy on a diabetic in 1788 which was found by the leading source of pros and cons of controversial topics, the pro con website (5). Although the experiment was falsely credited, the true finding of the cure was performed on a human. Researchers have found that “...human comparisons are necessary to truly understand the root causes of human diseases and to develop effective responses” (Driscoll and Finley 2). If animals do not directly or similarly reflect humans, researchers can find another alternative. Numerous studies do not result in effective outcomes, making it animal testing pointless because it wastes money and lives. Key medical events can be
Experimentation leads to the well-being of the human race as well as the animal population. For example, the findings of cures for diseases, conditions, and more can favor the human population because as a whole people will be endangered less. Another reason why people support animal testing is that animals can benefit from the experimentation themselves. Studies have shown how and why animal research is so valuable to the normal human, animals, and the military. The short life span of mice or rats aids researchers to examine the potency of a chemical or drug over a full lifespan. For example, researchers say that rats and mice are well-suited for cancer statistics because they live for about two to three years (“Should Animal Be Used” 3). The cancer cells tested on mice could also potentially be used on mice in the future which would increase their population. Animal testing advocates also say that testing benefits the lives of humans, but also helps develop military weapons and harmful injuries endured during the war. More specifically, some tests “...involved exposure to nerve agents or gases as well as inducing chemical burns” (“Military Defence” Murnaghan 1). The armed forces would not be able to treat burns or gas conditions if they did not conduct …show more content…
Researchers find that animals do not relate closely to humans; therefore, experimentation can be a waste of money and lives. Paul Furlong, the Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University, states that animals are difficult to test on because they are not equivalent in structure to humans. For example, it is difficult to compare a tiny mouse with a one hundred and fifty pound human (“Should Animals Be Used” 2). Also, breakthroughs can be discovered without experimentation; however, false credit has been given to researchers. For example, the discovery of insulin was credited through animal tests in 1922; however, the real finding of insulin was from Thomas Crawley, who performed an autopsy on a diabetic in 1788 which was found by the leading source of pros and cons of controversial topics, the pro con website (5). Although the experiment was falsely credited, the true finding of the cure was performed on a human. Researchers have found that “...human comparisons are necessary to truly understand the root causes of human diseases and to develop effective responses” (Driscoll and Finley 2). If animals do not directly or similarly reflect humans, researchers can find another alternative. Numerous studies do not result in effective outcomes, making it animal testing pointless because it wastes money and lives. Key medical events can be